If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I wish..

..i wish if the bill that was passed & signed was called The Universal Job Reform Bill..That way, everyone, or nearly all of the unemployed and uninsured medically, and can still work, will get a 1)job and 2)healthcare insurance. 2 problems solved at once & no need for a new healthcare reform bill...*sigh*

And i am pretty sure, that bill will get a 100% support from the public!

I usually don't like to make a prediction, but if one asks me what i think about the long term effect of this HC bill, i feel, in the long run this will bankrupt the country even more and the system will be broke and U.S. will owe even more (fits perfectly with his name Broke OWEbama). Unless, we get a Prez who'll really take advantage and unleash the U.S.' abundant natural resources and not rely on foreign oil to finance this big entitlement (i'm sure master silentheart knows). Why, because as more and more people get comfortable with receiving govt. subsidized health care/insurance (yes, people like free stuff), those people will get comfortable and won't want to change. Pretty soon, if the demand is way too high, where will the money come from to sustain it??.....Just take a look at Medicare, Social Security...

Agree with you...US is gonna deficit finance this bill and the debt will increase, who ever heard of health care costs ever decline? only one way to go and that is up and up...this debt will unfortunately be passed onto those who cannot yet vote or still haven't been born yet...like it or not, baby, yours to pay in generation to come....you are correct as long as there are 30+ million Americans happily on the receiving end of this bill, I can't see any future presidential candidate dares to reverse it least it pisses of this group...maybe BO wants this bill to be passed to secure 30+ million votes towards his next term election. Just a thought!

Yes, I tend to agree that the new health care bill will not do much to significantly improve America's vital statistics in life expectancy, healthcare cost as a percent of GDP, and infant mortality rate. At best it may stop the rot that would get progressively worse if nothing is done.
At least, there is someone who has the guts to do something, because doing nothing would only mean that those shameful health indicators or statistics will simply head north.
How on earth can you defend, comparatively speaking, such shockingly dismal health of a nation with so-called more freedom of choice when there are people who get no health care at all? Of course the rich will want their freedom to choose, not always wisely.

Yes, I tend to agree that the new health care bill will not do much to significantly improve America's vital statistics in life expectancy, healthcare cost as a percent of GDP, and infant mortality rate. At best it may stop the rot that would get progressively worse if nothing is done.
At least, there is someone who has the guts to do something, because doing nothing would only mean that those shameful health indicators or statistics will simply head north.
How on earth can you defend, comparatively speaking, such shockingly dismal health of a nation with so-called more freedom of choice when there are people who get no health care at all? Of course the rich will want their freedom to choose, not always wisely.

Something like this, you have to do it right. Because it you don't it will ruin an entire country. This is United State we are talking about. The democratic process works a lot different than the dictator/brain washing rule in china.

Give the man a fish, he will be fed for 3 days. Teach a man how to fish, he will never go hungry again.
My dream is. Make the law that all employer offer medical insurance to worker. If you are a small employer who do not have the number to form a group. Then this group will have power of large number to negotiate a group price to cover the person and household. To have all people in the US want to work has a job. It may not be the best job he/she want. However, the people will have health insurance coverage. If a person do not want to work, he/she is not contributing to this society. Why should my money used to cover his/her insurance? That person is a part of the problem.
Broke OweBama has all the priorities wrong. Fix the economy first, then you can deal with other entitlements. If you can not feed the people, entitlements will only add burden to the people who is working. You have a shrinking resource while the entitlement grow. He is bankrupting US faster than any leader in the history.

No country for sick men. Newsweek Sept 28 2009.

Originally Posted by ctjcad

..thank you for your input:
- Yes, i know you've been living in great Australia with its "socialized" UK health care system. But the U.S. is different because it offers individual freedom to choose or not to choose a healthcare plan without getting penalty. Now, with this law, young folks, kids, students will have to get a health insurance or pay fine to the govt. What happened to individual freedom? (i know the insurance companies are happy because they will get more customers). Humanity point of view that shows U.S. lack of caring to less fortunates? Are you kidding me? Not too brag or anything, but the U.S. has been the only nation in the world that has done more to humanity than any other country in history (at least in the last 100 yrs.). Look at how many millions of donations to worldwide catastrophes have been poured in?

Look Mr. C
I totally understand that you are there (in the U.S) and Im here (in AU), there are certainly lots of things that we may not understand fully about each other countries. And I appologies if i made any comment thats not appropriate to the situation in the U.S. But the fact is, i quote from Newsweek issued sept 28 2009 "22000 Americans die each year because they lack insurance; likewise, the US is the only develop nation where medical bankruptcies occur" In addition, "US lets some 700,000 people go bankcrupt each year. For me its hard to justify that US has been so helpful to others but cant do anything for thousands of her countrymen that die and bankcrupt each year for the lack of health care.

Originally Posted by ctjcad

In terms of lacking care for its own people in the U.S., all i can say is, there are millions of lazy people who don't want to work and only cling on govt. for help like leeches. If they get a job or education to improve their condition, they won't be poor and they'll afford a healthcare. And these are the ones who are in joy with this bill passage. Tell me, are you okay with that?

I hear these phrases/tones more times when im at Sydney eastern suburb (where I live) where in comparison to the western suburb our average income is higher. Why dont you tell this to the hard working blue collar guys next door Mr. C, Im sure he/she would not be in so much agreement with you. I agree that some people are lazy/bad/dumb/etc, about are all poor people lazy/bad/dumb/etc? Its again hard for me to justify the argument to be used for a reason not to have a public health care.

Originally Posted by ctjcad

But you have to understand, the rising cost is the cancer (no pun intended in this healthcare talk) and will not be fixed with this bill. And worse, premium will stay high if not go higher. This is basically more govt. subsidy. Just a pseudo-patch fix, just like master silentheart already mentioned.
- Economy wise, it's a wait and see approach. But as i already mentioned, this is another tax expansion on the country (the biggest one ever recorded in the history) and in the long run, the U.S. will be even broker (if that's even a word). And what does that mean with having more tax? Standard of living will be lower, healthcare quality will be mediocre, more govt. intrusion. More jobs? Business who will basically fund all of this (and the healthcare industry) will feel the pinch by paying even more tax.

I cant really comment fully on this (since i dont have enough knowledge about US economy). For example how deep the US is in the deficit or how much this health stuff will cost. But I just dont believe if anyone tell me that US cant afford a public health care system in place. What is the difference between raising tax for a health care purpose than raising tax to build bridges? No difference. Its a matter of priority.

Originally Posted by ctjcad

- As for the last point: Basically it comes down to you have a choice of a universal healthcare for everyone with mediocre care (like in your great country of Aussie). Or, have a private/free market system (in the U.S.) which allows people to choose or not choose whatever plans they want without getting another shaft from the govt. Who will who knows, botch up your money. Study the Social Securiy and Medicare govt. programs nightmare in the U.S. (see how bankrupt or going to be soon).

Tell me, which one you prefer? Having the govt. take and control more of your money and decide your healthcare OR you control more and decide for yourself what to do with your money for your healthcare?..if you choose the 2nd one, then i'm sorry, there will be no more of that in the U.S...

Each country have to take its own path in regards to this issue. Let me quote Prof Uwe Reinhart of Princeton "National values and character determine how each system works." As examples, in Germany and Austria health insurance pays for a week at a spa if a doctor prescribes it to deal with stress, in Japan and China doctors do both the prescription and selling of medicine.
The question is: who is covered? It looks like the U.S was a sole player in this issue. In UK Germany Canada France Japan Etc everybody is covered. If a public health care is not in place, in a place like US, then its likely that some people get the finest medical care while tens of thousand of others left to die for lack of care.
US pioneers in "Democracy and free speach" where everybody have equal rights, when it comes down to life and death i just dont understand why it took so long understand the concept of "health care for everybody, paid for by everybody". Here in Australia, Medicare (our public health cover) covers for everybody but not everything. Of course the wealthier people can have access to a better health service. But at least, all are covered for the basic needs.
In the US Declaration of Independence its stated "inalienable rights including a right to life" I intrepet this as an obligation of the Govt to provide a preventive health care for all American citizens. Here in Australia, Medicare (our public health cover) covers for everybody but not everything. The wealthier people can have access to a better health service, fair enough. But at least, all are covered for the basic needs.

Give the man a fish, he will be fed for 3 days. Teach a man how to fish, he will never go hungry again.
My dream is. Make the law that all employer offer medical insurance to worker. If you are a small employer who do not have the number to form a group. Then this group will have power of large number to negotiate a group price to cover the person and household. To have all people in the US want to work has a job. It may not be the best job he/she want. However, the people will have health insurance coverage. If a person do not want to work, he/she is not contributing to this society. Why should my money used to cover his/her insurance? That person is a part of the problem.
Broke OweBama has all the priorities wrong. Fix the economy first, then you can deal with other entitlements. If you can not feed the people, entitlements will only add burden to the people who is working. You have a shrinking resource while the entitlement grow. He is bankrupting US faster than any leader in the history.

Its also posible that other will think the same way as you. You think they dont work enough and they think you dont work enough. If thats the case, no health bill will be passed and US will still end up as the only develop country in the world without a public health care system.

Hi Y,
1) Even with this bill passed, we still do not have a public health system. Public option is not in the bill. People do not purchase health insurance because a) pre-existing condition which you ask insurance company to loose major money? no go... b) individuals who can not get into a group. They are lumped into a group of unknown risk. They are inherit higher risk and will be charged higher premium based on their risk. c) people think they are low risk and do not need to pay for the coverage and think even at $75 a month, it is too much. Yet, these are the people who cry and scream the loudest because they will die because they are just too cheap to get the insurance. Unless the law is requiring everyone in US to get insurance, this is a bad law.
2) Insurance company is good at making money. They will find way to make money given any law. If ins comp cannot make money, they will just not sell the product. Guess what, Those people suppose to get coverage, they will have to go to another company and rate will be higher again. This is not a good law again.
3) Without a true reform that makes everyone suffer. a) lawyer takes cut in fee and tort reform. b) ins company all regulated by 1 agency c) dr and hospitals all take pay cut in payment of 15~20%. or we go with the Great Canadian system d) drug patten cut to 10 yr. e) Everyone has to wait for 1 month+ for any none life threatening procedure unless you pay cash. you can not slow down the health care cost growth.

This law does not offer any of the fix. You can not just ask one side to suffer and calling them evil. BO is just bad president.

You lined up a hell of a problems/excuses/critisisms there.
If its not a progress/fix, then how should BO do to have a public health care system in place?

On these..

Originally Posted by OneToughBirdie

....you are correct as long as there are 30+ million Americans happily on the receiving end of this bill, I can't see any future presidential candidate dares to reverse it least it pisses of this group...maybe BO wants this bill to be passed to secure 30+ million votes towards his next term election. Just a thought!

...maybe..maybe those 30+ uninsured folks actually voted him in, in hope so he can pass any kind of health care reform bill (even as bad as this)..unfortunately, this is what those 30+ million uninsured people get (i don't know how many of them are thrilled)..
So, not sure if all of them are happy or not; but i feel there are a couple or so million folks who are happy. But definitely the majority of American people are not so supportive..
IMO, this issue will probably not be revisited seriously again for at least a generation, at max. Or perhaps, earlier.

Originally Posted by taneepak

...
At least, there is someone who has the guts to do something, because doing nothing would only mean that those shameful health indicators or statistics will simply head north.
How on earth can you defend, comparatively speaking, such shockingly dismal health of a nation with so-called more freedom of choice when there are people who get no health care at all? Of course the rich will want their freedom to choose, not always wisely.

- I'll tell you guys what. I'll give 1 credit to Prez BO (and those Dems who voted for this) for passing this bill. And that credit is by forcing the passage of this bad law (which i feel he also believes, deep down, it's a bad law), this has awaken every American people, i mean literally everyone, on this healthcare issue. To some, they feel it's a start, eventhough a really bad start, to having a better healthcare system. Now, everyone is awake and are up in arms on this passage and will start to find lawmakers who will work on replacing or amending the contents of the law (yes, it's still possible). Yes, people will demand whoever is put in power next to run the Congress, those people will be put in there to work and change this law.
My thinking is, Prez BO wants to be known as the one who started this process. But not necessarily the one who finishes it, because this bill will not be the end of it all and there bound to be more changes, amendments and debates in the future on this.
- As for why there are people who don't have healthcare insurance; here are the main reasons:
a) Insurance premiums too high. But realistically, there is no easy way to lower the price. (already been discussed in the other HC thread)
b) Those people are not working, thus no health insurance. If one is not working, how would one expect to get a health insurance. Whether that person is not working because of laziness or just not qualified or major illness, that we don't know. (already been discussed in the other HC thread)
c) They just refuse to get one because he/she feels there's no need to spend their money on health insurance (mostly younger folks). Which is also their right & choice.
But this bill doesn't even solve those 3 problems on why 30+ million Americans don't have health insurance. This bill is just expanding what is already there, Medicare, and making it bigger so it can subsidize even more people.

It's good you're asking all these..

Originally Posted by Yoppy

...But the fact is, i quote from Newsweek issued sept 28 2009 "22000 Americans die each year because they lack insurance; likewise, the US is the only develop nation where medical bankruptcies occur" In addition, "US lets some 700,000 people go bankcrupt each year. For me its hard to justify that US has been so helpful to others but cant do anything for thousands of her countrymen that die and bankcrupt each year for the lack of health care.

I hear these phrases/tones more times when im at Sydney eastern suburb (where I live) where in comparison to the western suburb our average income is higher. Why dont you tell this to the hard working blue collar guys next door Mr. C, Im sure he/she would not be in so much agreement with you. I agree that some people are lazy/bad/dumb/etc, about are all poor people lazy/bad/dumb/etc? Its again hard for me to justify the argument to be used for a reason not to have a public health care.

I cant really comment fully on this (since i dont have enough knowledge about US economy). For example how deep the US is in the deficit or how much this health stuff will cost. But I just dont believe if anyone tell me that US cant afford a public health care system in place. What is the difference between raising tax for a health care purpose than raising tax to build bridges? No difference. Its a matter of priority.

...
US pioneers in "Democracy and free speach" where everybody have equal rights, when it comes down to life and death i just dont understand why it took so long understand the concept of "health care for everybody, paid for by everybody". Here in Australia, Medicare (our public health cover) covers for everybody but not everything. Of course the wealthier people can have access to a better health service. But at least, all are covered for the basic needs.
In the US Declaration of Independence its stated "inalienable rights including a right to life" I intrepet this as an obligation of the Govt to provide a preventive health care for all American citizens. Here in Australia, Medicare (our public health cover) covers for everybody but not everything. The wealthier people can have access to a better health service, fair enough. But at least, all are covered for the basic needs.

Dear Yoppy or should i call you Mr. Y (maybe you like to ask "why?" a lot)??..
Btw, you can just call me small "c". Big "C" is for Dr. Cheung..

For the 1st part, i understand you like to read Newsweek, and yes it's not a bad magazine, and i used to read that magazine every so often. But to tell you, it's a liberal leaning magazine (i'm not sure if you're a proud liberal or not?). Not to tell you to stop reading, but be aware of that and the content.
Btw, that fact & infos are already well known & documented.
Why there are so many people in the U.S. who die and go bankrupt each yr because of lack of coverage? For my answer, you can take a look above to my reply to Mr. t. The discussion for this has also been brought up in the other HC thread which you can read in its entirety, so i won't spend more time typing.

For the 2nd part, to tell you, my next door neighbors usually are not home during the day as they are at work. Again, as i already mentioned in one of my previous posts, i don't mind a change of the U.S. current health care system. The idea to expand coverage to everyone is noble and worthy, i'm not against it. Unfortunately, how to solve it "the right way" is the key and it's the toughest thing to do. And what the U.S. folks have now is a bad solution to the problem. Only a small percentage of the population likes/supports the new bill (for the most part because they don't know what's hidden in it and the long term consequences).

Thank you for admitting you're not fully aware of the U.S. economy. But to tell you, if you've been reading & following news and articles, you would already know the U.S. is in deeeeep doo-doo in terms of its national debt and deficit. Just read the last "sky is falling again" thread. We've touched on that already. You might even find a link to see how much debt the U.S. has.
Adding this new entitlement is akin to you adding a new lease to your already credit card debt. But the main problem is, the U.S. doesn't have the money to finance this new program which will, yes, increase even more in the future. So, how is the govt.(or the ones who voted for it) gonna finance this whole mess? Yesp, through even more taxation (if not printing, which will create inflation). And yes, we Americans don't like to be taxed through the roof.
Question to ask: If you have a mounting debt, does it make sense to add more debt??..And doing this is in a tough economic time??..

For the fourth part, yes, the U.S. already has Medicare and a bunch of other govt. program to provide basic medical services for the needy. In a way, U.S. has alredy some sort of a universal health care system (but in most part, it's still a private/free-market system). It's not as if the U.S. don't have one.
What the new bill is doing is basically expanding those govt. programs, mainly Medicare, even bigger. What the Democrats are doing, in their strategy, is to paint a negative picture on the insurance companies and how they jack up the prices as a basis to pass this bill. In reality, insurance companies don't make much profit. What the Democrats really want is to control the people's money even more through taxation>>IRS!!!
Some people are not covered because of the reasons i gave above (reply to Mr. t) and also because the govt. is running out of money to sustain those big govt. programs.

In regards to this new bill creating more jobs in the health industry & make the economy grow again, i'm sorry, but it's not going to. This plan will only make the already established govt. program bigger. To create new jobs, one has to go out and actually be creative and start a business. Businesses are what create the economy and the money. Not govt. nor healthcare.

And last, in regards to the "inalienable rights including a right to life" statement, yes, i understand there may be different interpretations. But it has no relation to one having the govt. deciding whether a person should get a health insurance or not. Also, there's no mention of having a "right to healthcare". Or the "govt. having a right to give healthcare". Only a "right to life".
Here, i have a good reading for you on this "inalienable rights including a right to life" issue and in relation to having a universal health care system:http://tech.mit.edu/V129/N32/maurer.html

Have a read on the other HC thread also. This has been pretty much covered and discussed already.

Winding up..

Originally Posted by Yoppy

Its also posible that other will think the same way as you. You think they dont work enough and they think you dont work enough. If thats the case, no health bill will be passed and US will still end up as the only develop country in the world without a public health care system.

Originally Posted by Yoppy

You lined up a hell of a problems/excuses/critisisms there.
If its not a progress/fix, then how should BO do to have a public health care system in place?

..there is already a public health care system in place in the U.S. And, yes, we know it's broken. Prez BO and his cohorts (the Dems) are trying to fix or think they have the right fix, but they don't. This is just a temporary patch/fix; in the long run i feel it'll fail. They are just focused on expanding the role of the govt. even more. And to have the IRS, yes, that unconstitutional body, even more power.

Originally Posted by silentheart

...
Broke OweBama has all the priorities wrong. Fix the economy first, then you can deal with other entitlements. If you can not feed the people, entitlements will only add burden to the people who is working. You have a shrinking resource while the entitlement grow. He is bankrupting US faster than any leader in the history.

..you've been drumming on this for a while already..That is the correct approach to the illness!

To wind up:
- I am fully in support of a reform bill that gives coverage to nearly all Americans but at a reduced cost.
There have been great bi-partisan HC bill introduced to the Congress such as the Healthy Americans Act or HAA (or Wyden-Bennett Act, sponsore by a Democrat and a Republican, introduced under Prez W) and the Paul Ryan Act (using voucher). Yes, you guys can google them.
Both provide "universal coverage" but at a lower cost and will benefit the people's tax money. You fix both problems.
Unfortunately, the Dems who are in power refuse to accept those ideas and instead prefer to use a govt. based HC system while ignoring to tackle the cost problem. It's not as if the Republicans didn't try, but the opposition force was just too much.
I feel the opposition party (Republicans) to the bill didn't sell their plans well. I know there are more lawmakers with a doctor background in the Republican party than the Dems party. So, i'm sure they would know also issues in relation to the patients. I know they tried to offer their ideas to amend the laws but given the political nature and power of the Congress and the WH, it's almost impossible.
That's why i mentioned in the other HC thread, in order to have a good, sound and reasonable bill which the people approve, both parties need to work together: Dems have ideas on coverage measures but not cost measures. Republicans have ideas on cost measures but not coverage measures. Then, if so, they need to come and solve this as adults and provide a bipartisan solution. Instead, infighting occurred between both parties and at the end we end up with a piece of you-know-what bill.
- Going back to what i already mentioned, eventhough this is already a law, it still can be amended or some parts of it can be replaced. I give Prez BO credit for his effort to at least "force" everyone to pay attention & wake up.
Now, the role shifts to the opponents or to those who don't like the new bill. If they want to amend or replace it, yes, they can do so & have a chance in the upcoming mid-term election. The people will give them a chance and power to do so. But i really hope they will work real hard to fulfill the people's desire. Get it done & hopefully we'll have a reasonable looking bill/law that the rest of the America wants!

Mr small "c"

hi c, looks like we are a good match, i like to ask "why" a lot and you like to answer "cos" a lot hehheeh

Newsweek is happen to be the one that im reading at the moment, im not taking any political side of it. As for the answers to its content in regards to the health care casualties are just not satisfactory for me, we wont accept that condition here in Australia.

Im glad that you acknowledge that the U.S. current health care system can be improved, thats a start. This lead me to the question, did US citizen gave a mandate to Mr Pres BO during election to have it reformed? I have the impresion that he already promised about the reform during the election time, and if he did so with outlining how will he do it once elected, then he just simply keeping his promise.

I agree with you that its at the moment a bit hard especially in Australia not to make a bit of fun about US current stage of economy, its just consume and borrow too much and at risk of losing its AAA credit rating. Its unimaginable. One of the joke says, "Latest US invention: Sub-Prime Crisis, come and see it at your nearest Holywood box office".

As i said im no expert at all to comment on the affordability of the health care reform. But surely the poor or the world did not create the recession, did they? It was cause by careless US mortgage lender in the first place. So why now they (including the world economy) have to pay the price? Let me answer that Mr c, we all have to pay the price because we are all connected and we did not prevent that to happend, in other words we are all in this s**t hole together. Our economies are all linked, if the US go down the river so will the AU economy, we can only blame you guys to what happend but at the same time must be supportive on the solutions.

The same can be said to the health matter. The simple fact is there are people now going to die as we speak just because he/she dont have insurance cover (as why he/she did not have insurance is not a matter of concern anymore). It is now in the hand of US govt/people to make a choice, and i think based on that Mr. Pres BO did what he did yesterday.

A right to life is a right to life. When people is sick and dying he/she simply must receive a proper medical attention (its regardless of the end result which of course depends on the severity on the problem), this is how intrepet "a right to life" in the US independent declaration says. On your article its based on the argument/impression that "the right to the pursuit of happiness, not the right to happiness." I agree on the statement, its the same as me saying "the right to the pursuit of healthiness, not the right to healthiness". As i understand it, the health care reform is not about getting "healthy campaign", it about giving sick men and women a right to life.

Its nice to have a discussion with you, its been a pleasure . I hope everything will be OK in the US, otherwise BC wont be as interesting place to be

Can anyone explain why the US spends so much more per capita on health care yet performs so poorly against almost all developed countries? Obviously, there is something sinister about it. Maybe there are too many faked billings for services never rendered. Or maybe there are too many services that were not really necessary.
I suggest the US seek help from our Hong Kong's ICAC to find the defrauders.

Can anyone explain why the US spends so much more per capita on health care yet performs so poorly against almost all developed countries? Obviously, there is something sinister about it. Maybe there are too many faked billings for services never rendered. Or maybe there are too many services that were not really necessary.
I suggest the US seek help from our Hong Kong's ICAC to find the defrauders.

Could be the docs in US are so scared of malpractice lawsuits that the docs call for all kinds of test to cover themselves that drive up the cost of healthcare delivery. And there are a lot of other maybes...

[quote=Yoppy;1401924]hi c, looks like we are a good match, i like to ask "why" a lot and you like to answer "cos" a lot hehheeh

[quote=ctjcad;1401797]Dear Yoppy or should i call you Mr. Y (maybe you like to ask "why?" a lot)??..Btw, you can just call me small "c". Big "C" is for Dr. Cheung..